Partnerships for Research, Capacity Building, Innovation and Foresighting:

Managing Water for Agriculture and Food in ACP Countries

Integrating Agroecological Crop

Management within Integrated Water Resource Management: Lessons from Experience with the System of Rice

Intensification (SRI) Norman Uphoff, Cornell University, USA

GCARD2 Pre-Conference Meeting Punta del Este, 28 October, 2012

Integrated water resource management => integrated land + water resource

managementIWRM should also include improvements

in CROP MANAGEMENT

These can enable farmers to get MORE CROP PER DROP -- and

more importantly, they can help farmersto achieve MORE PRODUCTIVE

PHENOTYPESfrom available GENOTYPES

Essential elements for this are: Growth of better ROOT SYSTEMS and Mobilizing the services of SOIL BIOTA

Agroecological management of crops, soil, water and nutrients differs from the GR

strategy,in that it does not depend on either:

A. Changes in VARIETIES -- although we always want to use best available

genotypes, or onB. Increases in EXTERNAL INPUTS -- although

there will be times and places for using theseAgroecological methods seek to mobilize and

utilize biological potentials and processes that exist

within both PLANTS and SOIL SYSTEMS --enhancing the abundance, diversity and

activityof the PLANT/SOIL MICROBIOME

The significance and benefits of this phenomenon parallel those of the HUMAN

MICROBIOME

To make more productive and sustainable use of our

land/soil and water resources, we should achieve more productive PHENOTYPES from

any genotypes by making alterations in crops’ growing environments

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) from Madagascar is enabling farmers (in >50 countries) to get more productive rice plants from existing varieties (local, HYVs, hybrids) with:•Reduced irrigation water requirements, and•Greater resistance to climate-change effects

• Increased DROUGHT resistance• Resistance to STORM damage (less

lodging)• More resistance to PESTS & DISEASES• Even some tolerance of temperature

extremes Methods can be adapted to many OTHER CROPS

Basic Concepts for SRI/SCI:• Establish healthy plants early (young) and carefully,

making efforts to promote their root growth potential.• Reduce plant density, giving each plant more room to

grow (both above-ground and below-ground) to capture more sunlight and obtain more soil nutrients.

• Keep the soil well-aerated and enriched with organic nutrients, as much as possible, so that it can support better growth of roots and more aerobic soil biota.– Apply water in ways that can best support the growth of

plant roots and of beneficial soil microbes, avoiding continuous inundation and anaerobic soil conditions.

– Control weeds in soil-aerating way (mechanical weeder).

These practices when used together enable farmers to: • Increase the size/functioning of ROOT SYSTEMS,• Enhance the populations of SOIL BIOTA.

Additional Ideas for SRI/SCI:• Farmer-centered, participatory process of

agricultural improvement– Encouragement of farmer

experimentation, evaluation and adaptation – FAs, SHGs, …

– SRI is presented as a methodology rather than a new technology - still a work in progress

– Standard extension approach is changed to emphasize farmer-to-farmer spread

• Multi-stakeholder strategy brings together NGOs, universities, govt. agencies, research institutions, private sector, and individuals in collaborative efforts with farmers

Farmer inNepal witha rice plantgrown from

a single seed with

SRI methods in Morang

district

Farmer in Cuba with two plants of same variety (VN 2084) and same age (52

DAS)

Comparison trials in Iraq at Al-Mishkhab Rice Research Station, Najaf

SRI

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

IH H FH MR WR YRStage

Org

an d

ry w

eigh

t(g/

hill)

IH H FH MR WR YR

CK Yellow leafand sheath

Panicle

Leaf

Sheath

Stem

47.9% 34.7%

Non-Flooding Rice Farming Technology in Irrigated Paddy FieldDr. Tao Longxing, China National Rice Research Institute, 2004

Review of SRI management impacts on yield, water saving, costs of production & farmer income per ha

in 13 countries Country (N)

Conventional yield (t/ha)

SRIyield (t/ha)

Yieldincrease(%)

Watersaving(%)

Impact on cost per ha 

(%)

Impact on income per ha (%)

AFGHANISTAN 42# 5.6 9.3 55% NM NM NMBANGLADESH 1,073# 5.44 6.86 26% NM -7% +59%CAMBODIA 500* 1.63 2.29 41% Rainfed -56% +74%   3-yr SRI users                  

120# 1.34 2.75 105% Rainfed -47% +98%

CHINA 82* 6.6 9.37 42% 44% -7.4%** +64%   Sichuan (2004-10) 301,967 ha 7.7 9.5 23% 25.6% NR +US$320 millINDIA              108# 4.12## 5.47## 32%## Rainfed -35% +67%   Andhra Pradesh              

1,525# 6.31 8.73 34% 40% NM NM

INDONESIA   12,133# 4.27 7.61 78% 40% -20% >100%KENYA       Trials 6.2 7.6 26% 28.2% NM NM    Mwea Scheme " 8.66 14.85 70% 24% NM NMMALI    53# 5.5 9.1 60% 10% +15% +108%MYANMAR 612# 2.1 4.4 110% Rainfed +0.2% 8.7 timesNEPAL  412# 3.3 6.1 82% 43% -2.2%@ +163%   Far West Region 890# 4.01 7.58 88% >60% +32% +164%PANAMA    46# 3.44 4.75 38% 71-86% NM NMSRI LANKA  120* 3.84 5.52 44% 24% -12% +104%VIETNAM  1,274# 5.58 6.79 22% 33% -30% +36%Total N andAverages

18,870a + 300,000 ha 4.77 7.12 50% 37.5% -16% 94%a,b # Complete data sets, no sampling * Based on random sampling NM: not measured NR: not reported

Water use, water savings, and WUE -- 13 studiesYear Soil 

typeWater use * Water 

savingWater use efficiency Increase 

in WUEConv. SRI Conv. SRI

China 2004 CL 1,360 898 33.9% 0.46 0.88   91.3%

2005 CL 1,435 868 39.5% NR NR   68.0%

2006 CL 1,763 933 47.1% NR NR   94.0%

India 2002 CL NR NR NR 0.49 0.61   24.5%

2002-03 CL 1,578 1,272 19.4% 0.28 0.31   12.1%

2005-07 SL 1,254 962 23.3% NR NR NR

2005 BC 1,250 850 32.0% NR NR NR

2008 SCL 1,203 913 24.1% 0.36 0.72 100.0%

2009 SCL 1,242 990 20.3% 0.36 0.65   80.6%

Kenya 2010-11 V 11,610* 8,422* 27.5% 0.40 0.70   75.0%

2010-11 V 15,691* 11,573* 26.2% 0.20 0.50 150.0%

2010-11 V 15,096* 10,420* 31.0% 0.50 1.00 100.0%

Iraq 2009 CL 34,500* 21,600* 38.5% 0.11 0.29 164.5%

Averages mm ha-1 1,386 961 30.7% 0.35 0.63 87.3%* m3 ha-1 19,224* 13,003* 32.4%

STI in Ethiopia: Application of SRI

concepts & practices to production of tef

On left: transplanted tef; on right: usual

broadcast tef

3-5 t/ha vs. 1 t/ha

Crops Yield increases  Finger millet 3 to 4x  Legumes 50-200%  Maize 75%  Mustard 3 to 4x  Sugarcane 20-100%  Tef 3 to 5x  Turmeric 25%  Vegetables 100-270%  Wheat 10-140%SCI crops are mostly rainfed; 30% water saving with  

wheat and sugarcane; 66% with turmeric

Summary of results reported from farmers' fields forSystem of Crop Intensification (SCI)

which applies SRI concepts and methods to other crops

INDONESIACaritas introduced

SRI methods in Aceh in 2005 after

tsunami devastation – local

rice yields were raised from 2

t/ha to 8.5 t/ha “Using less rice seed, less water and organic

compost, farmers in Aceh have quadrupled their crop production.” ‘Rice Aplenty in Aceh,’ Caritas News

(2009) Similar quadrupling of rice yields by poor, food-insecure, resource-limited households has been documented also in Madagascar, Cambodia,

Madhya Pradesh (India)

AFGHANISTAN: SRI field in Baghlan Province, supported by Aga Khan Foundation Natural Resource

Management program

2008: 6 farmers got SRI yields of 10.1 t/ha vs. 5.4 t/ha regular

2009: 42 farmers got SRI yields of 9.3 t/ha vs. 5.6 t/ha regular

-2nd year SRI farmers got 13.3 t/ha vs. 5.6 t/ha-1st year SRI farmers got 8.7 t/ha vs. 5.5 t/ha

2011: 106 farmers got SRI yields of 10.1 t/ha vs. 5.04 t/ha regular

-- All using less water

MALI -- SRI nursery in Timbuktu region – 8-day seedlings ready for transplanting

SRI transplanting in Timbuktu, Mali

Farmer working with the NGO

Africare in Timbuktu region,

Mali showing difference between regular and SRI rice

plants

2007/08: 1 farmer - SRI yield of 8.98

t/ha2008/09: 60

farmers-9.01 vs. 5.49 t/ha

2009/10: 130 farmers – 7.71 vs.

4.48 t/hawith 32% less water

Gao average: 7.84 t/haMopti average: 7.85

t/ha

Other Benefits from Changes in Practices

1. Water saving – major concern in many places, also now have ‘rainfed’ version with similar results

2. Greater resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses – less damage from pests and diseases, drought, typhoons, flooding, cold spells [discuss tomorrow]

3. Shorter crop cycle – same varieties are harvested by 1-3 weeks sooner, save water, less crop risk

4. High milling output – by about 15%, due to fewer unfilled grains (less chaff) and fewer broken grains

5. Reductions in labor requirements – widely reported incentive for changing practices in India and China; also, mechanization is being introduced many places

6. Reductions in costs of production – greater farmer income and profitability, also health benefitsDrought-resistance: Rice fields in Sri Lanka, same variety

and same soil, 3 weeks after irrigation stopped because of drought -- conventionally-grown field on left, and SRI field

on right

Results from Bihar State, 2007-2011 (data from Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society, Govt. of

Bihar)SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION -- state average yield:  2.3 t/ha

  2007 2008 2009 2010

  Climatic conditions Normal rainfall

Water submergence occurred twice

Drought, but rainfall in Sept.

Complete drought

  No. of smallholders 128 5,146 8,367 19,911  Area under SRI  (ha)   30    544    786   1,412  SRI average yield (t/ha)   10.0  7.75   6.5   3.22*

  Conv. average yield (t/ha)     2.7  2.36     2.02   1.66*

,

SYSTEM OF WHEAT INTENSIFICATION -- state average yield:  2.4 t/ha2008-09 2009-10 2010--11

  No. of smallholders 415 25,235 48,521

  Area under SWI (ha)   16   1,200 2,536

  SWI average yield (t/ha) 3.6 4.5 NA

  Conventional average yield (t/ha) 1.6 1.6 NA

* Results from measurements of yield on 74 farmers’ SRI and conventional fields

Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

SRI area (ha) 1,133 7,267 57,400 117,267 204,467 252,467 301,067 941,068

SRI yield (kg/ha) 9,105 9,435 8,805 9,075 9,300 9,495 9,555 9,252

Non-SRI yield (kg/ha) 7,740 7,650 7,005 7,395 7,575 7,710 7,740 7,545

SRI increment (t/ha)* 1,365 1,785 1,800# 1,680 1,725 1,785 1,815# 1,708

SRI % increase in yield* 17.6% 23.3% 25.7% 22.7% 22.8% 23.2% 23.5% 22.7%

Grain increment (tons） 1,547 12,971 103,320 197,008 352,705 450,653 546,436 1.66 mill

Addl. net income from

SRI use (million RMB)* 1.28 11.64 106.5 205.1 450.8 571.7 704.3 2,051>$300 mill 

*Comparison with Sichuan provincial average for paddy yield and SRI returns#Drought years: SRI yields were relatively better than with conventional methodsSource: Data are from the Sichuan Provincial Department of Agriculture.

CHINA: SRI extension/impact in Sichuan Province, 2004-10

Storm resistance: Dông Trù village,Hanoi province, Vietnam, after

fields were hit bya tropical storm

Right: conventional

field and plant;Left: SRI field

and plant

Same variety usedin both fields -- on right, seriouslodging is seen;

no lodging on left

Incidence of diseases and pests in Vietnam:

National IPM Program evaluation -- averages of data from on-farm trials in 8 provinces, 2005-

06:Spring season Summer season

SRIPlots

FarmerPlots

Differ-ence

SRIPlots

FarmerPlots

Differ-ence

Sheath blight

6.7%

18.1% 63.0% 5.2%

19.8% 73.7%

Leaf blight

-- -- -- 8.6%

36.3% 76.5%

Small leaf folder *

63.4 107.7 41.1% 61.8 122.3 49.5%

Brown plant hopper *

542 1,440 62.4% 545 3,214 83.0%

AVERAGE

55.5% 70.7%* Insects/m2

Resistance to both biotic and abiotic stresses in Indonesia:

fields have been hit by both brown planthopper (BPH) and by storm damage (typhoon): rice on left was grown with standard practices; organic SRI is

seen on right

Modern improved variety

(Ciherang) – no yield

Traditional aromatic

variety (Sintanur)

- 8 t/ha

Comparison of methane gas emissionComparison of methane gas emission

CT SRI

kg C

H4

/ ha

0

200

400

600

800

1000

840.1

237.6

72 %

Treatment

Emission (kg/ha)CO2 ton/ha 

equivalentCH4 N2O

CT 840.1  0 17.6

SRI 237.6  0.074   5.0

Partnerships: Evaluations and dissemination of SRI carried out by diverse stakeholders with a farmer-

centered focusNGOs: Africare (Mali); Aga Khan Foundation

(Afghanistan); BRAC (Bangladesh); CEDAC (Cambodia); Metta Development Foundation (Myanmar); Oxfam

America (Vietnam); Patronato de Nutriciòn (Panama); WWF (India)

Government agencies: Morang District Agricultural Dev. Office (Nepal); Sichuan Provincial Dept of Agric

(China); Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development/PPD (Vietnam)

Universities: ANGRAU (India); China Agric. University; Jomo Kenyatta Univ. of Agriculture & Technology (Kenya)

Private sector: Nippon Koei (Indonesia); Syngenta (BD)Donor agencies: FAO-EU (Nepal); GTZ (Cambodia);

USAID (Mali, Tanzania); World Bank InstituteInternational research centers: ICRISAT (India);

IRRI (Bangladesh); IWMI (India and Sri Lanka)

What is needed for scaling up?* Overcoming mental barriers: farmer skepticism; but more resistance from agronomists, and even from economists* Relatively little financial investment: * Need much training for technicians as well as for farmers; also for scientists * Also need some research regarding: - water management/optimization - applied soil biology – ‘a new frontier’ - applications to other crops (SCI) - utilizing climate-smart opportunities * Make water-saving profitable for farmers - This is achieved with SRI/SCI practices

Three key messages:1. For higher crop productivity and for greater water productivity, focus more: a. On growth/function of root systemsb. Enhanced soil organic matter – so as to increase our stocks of ‘green water’ [these two factors interact beneficially]2. The concept of ‘technology transfer’ needs to be changed to support PTD !3. We need a paradigm shift replacing genocentrism with a better understanding and utilization of plant/soil microbiome

For more information on SRI/SCI:

SRI International Network andResources Center (SRI-Rice)

Website: http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu

at Cornell International Institute for

Food, Agriculture and Develoment (CIIFAD), Cornell

University, or

Norman Uphoff: ntu1@cornell.edu